Whats your opinion

[Msterbeau]

...on a Mac?

I did not know that...tell me more......like..what's a "Linux"...

(I just crawled out of me cave this sprig..remember)...

Macs run basically the same hardware as PCs. They have a different technology for the bootloader (EFI) which means OS-X runs only on Mac hardware (Without hacking... like mine.. ) but any other OS that runs on Intel hardware can be run on Mac hardware. You do it one of three ways. 1. Reformat the hardrive and install it directly, eliminating OS-X. *cries* 2. Use Bootcamp to create a separate partition to install the alternate OS to. 3. Run it within OS-X in a virtualized environment. VMWare and Parallels allow for this. Basically your alternate OS is like an application from withing OS X.

Look up Linux yourself lazy bones. It's similar to UNIX but open source.

[Rev.Reverence]

Macs run basically the same hardware as PCs. They have a different technology for the bootloader (EFI) which means OS-X runs only on Mac hardware (Without hacking... like mine.. ) but any other OS that runs on Intel hardware can be run on Mac hardware. You do it one of three ways. 1. Reformat the hardrive and install it directly, eliminating OS-X. *cries* 2. Use Bootcamp to create a separate partition to install the alternate OS to. 3. Run it within OS-X in a virtualized environment. VMWare and Parallels allow for this. Basically your alternate OS is like an application from withing OS X.

Look up Linux yourself lazy bones. It's similar to UNIX but open source.

That WHOLE first paragraph totally confusing...

Which is why I did not look it up with Google...'cause they are going to be explaining it in such a manner that I'll not understand...I was not being lazy

[Destroit]

Macs run basically the same hardware as PCs. They have a different technology for the bootloader (EFI) which means OS-X runs only on Mac hardware (Without hacking... like mine.. ) but any other OS that runs on Intel hardware can be run on Mac hardware. You do it one of three ways. 1. Reformat the hardrive and install it directly, eliminating OS-X. *cries* 2. Use Bootcamp to create a separate partition to install the alternate OS to. 3. Run it within OS-X in a virtualized environment. VMWare and Parallels allow for this. Basically your alternate OS is like an application from withing OS X.

Look up Linux yourself lazy bones. It's similar to UNIX but open source.

...Soo...if you can now install Windows/Linux on Macs...doesn't that pretty much make their hardware obsolete because you have to pay an arm and a leg to get the same exact hardware features as your average PC?

Solution: Buy a Windows based PC, if you hate Windows horribly, then install Linux. Will save you a couple hundred dollars in buying Mac's crappy hardware.

[Msterbeau]

...Soo...if you can now install Windows/Linux on Macs...doesn't that pretty much make their hardware obsolete because you have to pay an arm and a leg to get the same exact hardware features as your average PC?

Solution: Buy a Windows based PC, if you hate Windows horribly, then install Linux. Will save you a couple hundred dollars in buying Mac's crappy hardware.

Crappy. Oh yeah.. That would be why they've topped the quality ratings ever since... forever.

The reason to get the hardware is you get OS-X without hassle and then you can run whatever else you want thereafter. And if you compare feature for feature on the hardware side... they aren't more expensive. Apple just doesn't play in the bargain market so they *seem* expensive. Neither does Ferrari. If you want dirt cheap hardware, go elsewhere.

[Msterbeau]

That WHOLE first paragraph totally confusing...

Which is why I did not look it up with Google...'cause they are going to be explaining it in such a manner that I'll not understand...I was not being lazy

I'll explain next time I see you.

[Rev.Reverence]

I'll explain next time I see you.

..I'll be at Club on Saturday...& sober.....till about 12...I have things to talk about this week...

...& I'ld like to remember them all

[Dollardave]

I'm gonna keep from posting topics cause all they end up in is arguments and fact findings. I'll do this for a while. I used to be loose ended making people laugh and stuff, but ever since the boards gotten so serious I'm just gonna respond to posts not create any except for one more, but it is of importance nothing about me its about animals.

$$

[Msterbeau]

..I'll be at Club on Saturday...& sober.....till about 12...I have things to talk about this week...

...& I'ld like to remember them all

I has children this weekend. Are you going tonight to sushi?

[Simon Bar Sinister]

I like Vista.

Of course, all I've had to compare it to is a somewhat buggy version of Windows98.

[Dollardave]

This I have warned my older corporate customers about tho using winpass u can hack thru to the workstation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOtry-joxDs

$$

[StormKnight (1)]

None of those links work.

Does it say if they are using a 32bit OS or 64bit?

If it's a 32bit, how do they get around the fact that a 32bit OS only has 4GB of address space?

If they are 64bit, it's a moot point, as all 64bit OSs can use more than 4GB of ram.

Sorry about the link issue.

Macs have had 64-bit processors since the G5 series chip. On installation, the OS X install DVD (only one disk for both processors,) automatically recognizes whether it is a 32-bit processor (like a G3 or G4 chip,) vs. a 64-bit (like the G5 and the new Intel macs,) processor in the computer. The 32-bit processors only recognize 4gig, while the 64-bit processor addresses more.

So:

*G5 and most Intel Macs=64-bit.

*G3 and G4 macs=32-bit.

[Rev.Reverence]

I has children this weekend. Are you going tonight to sushi?

...no...I'm not...O_M_G likes that shit...I haz Jr.Goat...

.....27th is another possibility...

[Dollardave]

Sorry about the link issue.

Macs have had 64-bit processors since the G5 series chip. On installation, the OS X install DVD (only one disk for both processors,) automatically recognizes whether it is a 32-bit processor (like a G3 or G4 chip,) vs. a 64-bit (like the G5 and the new Intel macs,) processor in the computer. The 32-bit processors only recognize 4gig, while the 64-bit processor addresses more.

So:

*G5 and most Intel Macs=64-bit.

*G3 and G4 macs=32-bit.

My counselor told me he had a G5 at home built to the hilt. He also said he pays for his songs thru itunes cuz he doesn't believe in downloading and doesn't wanna get caught. If I wanna hear a song I haven't downloaded I just listen to it on youtube its like having a huge music cd collection.

$$

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

And if you compare feature for feature on the hardware side... they aren't more expensive. Apple just doesn't play in the bargain market so they *seem* expensive. Neither does Ferrari. If you want dirt cheap hardware, go elsewhere.

Thats not true at all.

I just checked Apples store. An Imac with an Intel 2.66 CPU is $1499 base price.

I go to newegg and build an exact copy. Using top of the line parts...

Asus motherboard, MSI video card (they are the only "large brand" that makes a crappy ass ATI HD 2600 that comes in the Apple), Corsair memory, Seagate hard drive and 20" Acer monitor. Oh, and 64bit Vista Home Premium. $734.

Half the cost for a system that will most likely be faster.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Sorry about the link issue.

Macs have had 64-bit processors since the G5 series chip. On installation, the OS X install DVD (only one disk for both processors,) automatically recognizes whether it is a 32-bit processor (like a G3 or G4 chip,) vs. a 64-bit (like the G5 and the new Intel macs,) processor in the computer. The 32-bit processors only recognize 4gig, while the 64-bit processor addresses more.

So:

*G5 and most Intel Macs=64-bit.

*G3 and G4 macs=32-bit.

You confusing things dude. It's not the CPU that is recognizing the Ram. It's the OS. With a 64bit cpu, your OS install DVD is installing the 64bit version of the OS.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

One more thing... even in retail... an Intell 2.8 cpu is only $30 more than a 2.66 cpu... So why is the Apple iMac with a 2.8 cpu $300 more than the exact same pc with a 2.66?

[Msterbeau]

Thats not true at all.

I just checked Apples store. An Imac with an Intel 2.66 CPU is $1499 base price.

I go to newegg and build an exact copy. Using top of the line parts...

Asus motherboard, MSI video card (they are the only "large brand" that makes a crappy ass ATI HD 2600 that comes in the Apple), Corsair memory, Seagate hard drive and 20" Acer monitor. Oh, and 64bit Vista Home Premium. $734.

Half the cost for a system that will most likely be faster.

See... that's the difference between you and people that buy Macs. You put no value to the design and assembly side.

Are all those components you just mentioned going to fit into one nice case with the monitor? No... It'll look like shit and take up a bunch of room. You probably don't care. Some Mac owners want that. Plus... you have to take the time and have the expertise to assemble it yourself. Not many people do. Nor do they care to. Plus. Did you factor in the cost of a case, keyboard and mouse and probably some other little components? I can guarantee that someone will always be able to make your argument by picking and choosing stuff and homebuilding. And there will always be value that a Mac has that people like you don't care about. You want cheap speed. You like to tinker. That's fine. But some people want a well designed system that works well, is high quality and looks nice. Macs fill that need.

[n0Mad]

I like how this has gone from opinions on Vista to Mac vs. DOS-box debate. (It's not Mac vs. PC debate because Macs are PCs.)

Mac & Mac & Cheese

[Dollardave]

I like how this has gone from opinions on Vista to Mac vs. DOS-box debate. (It's not Mac vs. PC debate because Macs are PCs.)

Mac & Mac & Cheese

In the sales realm its what old schoolers used to refer to a dos based machine instead of saying dos or mac they said pc or mac are u interested in. Its old marketing lingo.

$$

[Msterbeau]

I like how this has gone from opinions on Vista to Mac vs. DOS-box debate. (It's not Mac vs. PC debate because Macs are PCs.)

Mac & Mac & Cheese

I think people should buy what they like. and give me the food.

[jynxxxedangel]

You guys have totally lost me!

All I know, is I couldn't get my friend's computer to do what I wanted it to do, with that horrible OS! If it's not broke, don't try to fix it, Microsoft!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

See... that's the difference between you and people that buy Macs. You put no value to the design and assembly side.

Are all those components you just mentioned going to fit into one nice case with the monitor? No... It'll look like shit and take up a bunch of room. You probably don't care. Some Mac owners want that. Plus... you have to take the time and have the expertise to assemble it yourself. Not many people do. Nor do they care to. Plus. Did you factor in the cost of a case, keyboard and mouse and probably some other little components? I can guarantee that someone will always be able to make your argument by picking and choosing stuff and homebuilding. And there will always be value that a Mac has that people like you don't care about. You want cheap speed. You like to tinker. That's fine. But some people want a well designed system that works well, is high quality and looks nice. Macs fill that need.

Yes, I factored in case, keyboard and mouse. I factored in everything that was offered on the Mac.

As for looking like shit, that depends on a person's taste. I don't find the iMac to look anybetter than an Acer monitor. Acer monitors are damn sexy looking. As for the case... yes, I chose a cheap one but for a mear $180 more I could have picked a Thermaltake Bach case... which still would have put me around $450 cheaper.

http://www.thermaltakeusa.com/Product.aspx...mp;ID=1426#Tab2

BTW.. as for the design... every other computer manufactureer offers all-in-one design.

People want them but people dont know the history of "all in one" computers. They have the highest failure rate of any computer design. They also have the highest repair cost. Cost of ownership on an all-in-one is double that of a standard design. It's a poor design spec at best. Why do you think the real macs (mac pros) are not all-in-one design?

I don't "tinker" with computers anymore than you tinker with auto design. Keep your belittling insults.

You like Macs and thats fine but you honestly don't know enough about computers in general to even be in this conversation.

BTW...

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping...e=IQ506t_series

$50 cheaper... and you get a 22" touch screen, twice the memory, a good video card rather than an ATI piece of shit, a 500GB hard drive rather than a 320... and hey, it looks damn nice.

[Scales]

I go with XP Pro 32 bit or 64 bit depending on the processor out of personal preference because I think it's those are the best OS's for stable gaming; I'm pretty militantly against Vista. If I wasn't so much into gaming I would be running some sort of Linux because it's a geek OS. But as far as photo manipulation, film-editing, and 3-d modeling, I have a cousin who swears by MAC's. In the end it comes down to preference.

[Rayne]

OS X Leopard is 64 bit.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/64bit.html

Tiger (what I have) is 64 bit too.

As for my own opinion -- I am a Mac person now. LoL. I'll get a MacBook Pro for school and duel boot XP (currently the school I WANT to attend in a few years is only Microsoft based software) ... NOT VISTA.

[Shade Everdark]

As much as people bag on Microsoft (and I'm one of 'em, I'll admit), they can make a good product, once in a while. Windows 2000, both server-side and client-side, was a pretty good product. Windows XP has been rock solid for what now, six years? And Windows Server 2003 is a stable and flexible server OS.

Vista is...simply not one of them. Vista is the new ME, and as such, needs to die a quick and horrible death.